Overland Content Feedback Thread

Parasaurolophus

The difficulty slider is not a solution. Not at all. I don't understand why players in these discussions don't see it. Most quest bosses are not in instances, and it's unlikely that ZoS will place them there. Moreover, some sort of reward system for increased difficulty would be necessary. How are we supposed to play in the same world, fight the same boss, if player strength is scaled differently? It makes no sense.

Different versions of the world for veteran and normal modes? That's a bit better, but why bother? It won't significantly improve our experience. ZoS has spent years planning and developing the overworld as it is now, and it's no surprise that locations become deserted—players simply complete all the POIs, and there's no reason to return.

The overworld needs a completely different approach. New activities, new content, perhaps with adjustable difficulty. Questing could be more than just what it is now. But as for what to do with these dozens of empty decorations made for questing, I have no idea. Hopefully, ZoS has some ideas—time will tell.

One thing I want to say to those who so aggressively defend the current state of the overworld: ZoS wouldn't be changing their development strategy if everything was fine.

SilverBride

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

One thing I want to say to those who so aggressively defend the current state of the overworld: ZoS wouldn't be changing their development strategy if everything was fine.

They haven't even said that they are changing it, or how. The "experiment" may not lead to anything permanent.

disky

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

The difficulty slider is not a solution. Not at all. I don't understand why players in these discussions don't see it. Most quest bosses are not in instances, and it's unlikely that ZoS will place them there. Moreover, some sort of reward system for increased difficulty would be necessary. How are we supposed to play in the same world, fight the same boss, if player strength is scaled differently? It makes no sense.

Different versions of the world for veteran and normal modes? That's a bit better, but why bother? It won't significantly improve our experience. ZoS has spent years planning and developing the overworld as it is now, and it's no surprise that locations become deserted—players simply complete all the POIs, and there's no reason to return.

The overworld needs a completely different approach. New activities, new content, perhaps with adjustable difficulty. Questing could be more than just what it is now. But as for what to do with these dozens of empty decorations made for questing, I have no idea. Hopefully, ZoS has some ideas—time will tell.

One thing I want to say to those who so aggressively defend the current state of the overworld: ZoS wouldn't be changing their development strategy if everything was fine.

Why don't you think it makes sense? Why is it any different from now, when we have such a wide variety of player builds, skill and ability? What's the problem with adding one more element which diversifies the playerbase if we're so diverse already? Who will it harm if a player chooses to enable this feature?

I agree that different types of activities are great, but we've already seen Bastion Nymic and Infinite Archive, and while those are fun distractions they don't solve the problem with overland itself - it's boring for anyone who seeks a challenge, and as someone who wants to do overland content more than anything, I'm not going to find something that takes me away from overland to be an acceptable alternative.

Parasaurolophus

@disky Scenario: You increased the difficulty to enjoy the quest, but suddenly you realize that all the mobs ahead of you are being obliterated by a player on lower difficulty settings. You finally reach the boss of the quest; the fight begins, and you're executing the mechanics. Then, out of nowhere, a player with lower difficulty settings shows up and nukes the boss with a single ultimate ability.
What if increasing the difficulty level meant better rewards? For example, if three players were fighting the boss—one on a high difficulty and the other two on low difficulty—how would the rewards be distributed?

LootAllTheStuff

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

The difficulty slider is not a solution. Not at all. I don't understand why players in these discussions don't see it. Most quest bosses are not in instances, and it's unlikely that ZoS will place them there. Moreover, some sort of reward system for increased difficulty would be necessary. How are we supposed to play in the same world, fight the same boss, if player strength is scaled differently? It makes no sense.

Different versions of the world for veteran and normal modes? That's a bit better, but why bother? It won't significantly improve our experience. ZoS has spent years planning and developing the overworld as it is now, and it's no surprise that locations become deserted—players simply complete all the POIs, and there's no reason to return.

The overworld needs a completely different approach. New activities, new content, perhaps with adjustable difficulty. Questing could be more than just what it is now. But as for what to do with these dozens of empty decorations made for questing, I have no idea. Hopefully, ZoS has some ideas—time will tell.

One thing I want to say to those who so aggressively defend the current state of the overworld: ZoS wouldn't be changing their development strategy if everything was fine.

There is a way to do it, although I believe it would require quite a bit of work to implement: there's a difficulty scaling factor in all damage and enemy stats calculations that takes into account player level. So a CP 600 player could be playing alongside a level 35 player in a random encounter or accompanying them as they complete story missions, and they will both be doing useful damage alongside one another. As an example, players in Borderlands 3 can choose this as one of two options for the game when they start a coop session.

It would be tricky in no small part because there should still be *some* sort of scaling with player progression, so it couldn't be a direct "each player light hits for X% of the target health pool" - stats and progression still have to mean something - but it could be tied to a per-character difficulty slider (much like various existing game play options are set per character).

@ZOS_Kevin: on a more general note speaking as someone who came late to the game and has been slowly working through the story content chapter by chapter, I would caution *against* raising base game difficulty up to current chapter/DLC difficulty, especially for things like incursions, public dungeons, delves, and world bosses. When a zone is largely empty of players, it is already impossible to complete some of the incursions and world bosses for the average player without access to meta-gear and potions. This afternoon, for example, Western Skyrim was pretty much empty except for people grabbing a few giants for the daily. Active harrowstorms were impossible for the two players who actually showed up. Likewise in High Isle, the Sable Knight was one-shot overkilling the two players in the arena - the disparity in damage and health was simply too great. I've seen someone suggest that World and Dungeon boss' level should scale to number of players in the arena. It could even be set up so that there were additional drops if the player count/boss difficulty went over certain thresholds. That would keep things somewhat accessible (especially for new players) without being a cakewalk for the veterans.

SilverBride

Deyirn wrote: »

From what I read so far said by some people who are vehemently against difficulty increase, they use arguments such as "people who want difficulty increase are selfish" or the same people claim to be very grounded in reality whereas all their saying point out they are very detached from reality and living in their own bubble instead.

No one that is happy with the current overland has called anyone else selfish. In fact, many have even supported optional difficulty for those that want more difficulty, even though we don't want it for ourselves. We wouldn't support this if we thought they had selfish motives.

Nor is anyone detached from reality or living in a bubble for having a different opinion and playstyle.

disky

Parasaurolophus wrote: »

@disky Scenario: You increased the difficulty to enjoy the quest, but suddenly you realize that all the mobs ahead of you are being obliterated by a player on lower difficulty settings. You finally reach the boss of the quest; the fight begins, and you're executing the mechanics. Then, out of nowhere, a player with lower difficulty settings shows up and nukes the boss with a single ultimate ability.
What if increasing the difficulty level meant better rewards? For example, if three players were fighting the boss—one on a high difficulty and the other two on low difficulty—how would the rewards be distributed?

This scenario is exactly how some players already feel while playing the game. As far as rewards are concerned, so what? If anything the difference in reward quality might be a rarity level. It's not going to set the world on fire. It's an edge case that I don't think is going to matter in the long run, especially if the sum total means people who weren't previously enjoying the game, for years, finally get to enjoy it.

Parasaurolophus

@disky I'm on your side, I also think that the current overland and questing lack gameplay and are very boring. I'm just saying that the slider is a bad solution.

Arunei

thatnewcatsmell wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

I've never understood the mindset of wanting others to struggle to accomplish something in a game just so one can feel 'strong'. How others play the game and whether they achieve any given thing or not, they don't affect your own ability. Demanding that others need to have their ability to play the game negatively impacted just so you feel good about what you've accomplished is...I'm sorry it's selfish, and it feels like a game like an MMO isn't the sort of game to play with that mindset.

Not everything needs to be a grueling struggle to accomplish even the most basic of things. Overland doesn't need to be some grand challenge just so someone feels like their "efforts" seem validated because they're able to do it but most others struggle. It's a game not a competition to see who can do what and who can't.

Edit to add this is in response to another post. I was gonna quote it but I hit the Last button on accident and couldn't remember what page the comment was on or the name of who posted it so...

So are you suggesting that overland content should be made easier? There are a couple of posts from people who aren't able to complete recent quest bosses. Should overland turn into 'click boss to win'? What's an acceptable amount of 'struggle'?

Er...i genuinely don't know how you got "Overland should be easier" from my post haha. I wasn't trying to imply that at all.

Overland is easy for me for the most part. I can solo most WBs, I can solo Dolmens and Geysers (not Dragons or Vents and more recent Incursions tho). I know the telegraphs for Heavy Attacks from mobs so I know when to block or dodge roll. I know how to Interrupt those HAs or other moves by mobs. I know how to Stun or use other CC. I understand buffs and debuffs. I know how to theorycraft builds because using meta builds isn't fun for me. I gold all my final builds because I'm a crafter and have hundreds of improvement mats hoarded because I'm not just a casual player.

I don't care that Overland is easy, I like the game as it is now. If it gets made harder it likely won't impact me at all because I've been playing for so long I know HOW to play. I'm not great at the game because I'm easily overwhelmed if there's lots of stuff going on (ty ADHD lol) but I can manage easily enough.

My opinion is any increase in difficulty needs to be optional, so the people who struggle currently won't wind up locked out of the game and people who are bored can have the challenge they want. It's the opinion that a majority of us posting here hold.

The post you quoted was directed at someone who basically wanted the difficulty to be forced onto everyone; they said they want their achievements in the game to matter and the only way that would happen is if everyone isn't capable of doing what they can. Which is a very selfish outlook to have imho. What other peoples' ability to complete has no bearing on what any of us as individuals can complete, and we shouldn't be so focused.on vindicating our own successes based on those of others.

Avran_Sylt

This is such a bloated thread that I hope it gets shut down. Culled, or at least adhere to their necro policy.

Arunei

Avran_Sylt wrote: »

This is such a bloated thread that I hope it gets shut down. Culled, or at least adhere to their necro policy.

1) How is it bloated?

2) Why would you want it closed? Which isn't going to happen either way because iirc Kevin said they're still getting feedback, so unless people start getting wildly off-topic or posts become excessively out of hand, it's not getting closed.

3) It's a stickied thread, which means the necro policy doesn't apply to it. And afaik it hasn't had any real period where it was inactive for a month or longer. Just because a thread is old doesn't mean anything; necro'ing means posting in threads past a certain period of inactivity and has nothing to do with a thread's age.

UKCarnage

Put me in the camp of 'happy with the current level of overland difficulty.'
It took me months of grinding and training to get myself to the stage of one-shotting adds and start soloing world bosses - a 'tangible' reward for all my effort.
For me, the easy overland difficulty was a result of MY actions, MY labour MY hard work which shows actual progression of my abilities.
I feel, if overland difficulty was to arbitrary just become harder, that my work behind pushing my progression is just wasted.
Why then should I grind more? Why should I sink MORE time in this game if goalposts are just going to be moved further down the line? Are they going to be moved again? Who knows...

Hanoan

Devs can increase overland difficulty and add optional "story mode" buff for those who wants to one-shot various bosses...

TaSheen

Hanoan wrote: »

Devs can increase overland difficulty and add optional "story mode" buff for those who wants to one-shot various bosses...

I don't want to one-shot anything; I just want story bosses not to take me 10 or so tries, and not to make my hands/wrists hurt for days after....

Arunei

Hanoan wrote: »

Devs can increase overland difficulty and add optional "story mode" buff for those who wants to one-shot various bosses...

Or they can go the easier route and make it an opt-in thing for increased difficulty instead of forcing it onto everyone; it's more work to both make Overland harder AND introduce a 'story mode' than it is to just develop an opt-in system for a greater challenge.

lISpartanIl

After 10 years playing the game finally we have this very needed change I can solo everything in overland and not even take 10% damage it’s crazy how easy is the game , so I think the solution is very simple to keep everyone happy just make two different instances one with the game on normal mode like now and another instance with really hard mobs and bosses with more health an more difficult and just give everyone a choice to swap anytime, everyone will be happy with this.

Arunei

lISpartanIl wrote: »

After 10 years playing the game finally we have this very needed change I can solo everything in overland and not even take 10% damage it’s crazy how easy is the game , so I think the solution is very simple to keep everyone happy just make two different instances one with the game on normal mode like now and another instance with really hard mobs and bosses with more health an more difficult and just give everyone a choice to swap anytime, everyone will be happy with this.

How can you know for sure everyone would be happy with "really hard" mobs? The problem with doing a blanket increase is there will be people who feel it went too far and made things too hard, and there will be people who feel it's not hard enough and will demand more challenge.

Plus, numerous people have stated they don't want average mobs being akin to Craglorn Wasps pre-1T. Most people who want Overland more challenging more want story bosses and other such mobs to be stronger so they pose the threat they're claimed to be by the game. There are fewer people who want to struggle just to get from point A to point B, which also indicates not everyone would be happy with super hard mobs.

There are also concerns that having separate instances would wind up splitting the player base, making it harder for people to find groups for content in either instance. And more instances means more work for the servers, especially if every zone were to have it's own instance that never closed. Most instances are story ones or group content like Dungeons or Trials, which close once that content is complete or the group/person otherwise leaves it. Having permanent instances for every zone would be a constant pull on the servers. You could say that the instance works like current solo instances do, but then how do people who want to play together on the Hard Mode instance do that if every instance is per player?

An opt-in slider would better all around imo, a way for people to decide to just how much of a challenge they want for themselves without adding more stuff for the servers to choke on. But ultimately we'll see what ZOS has planned. It might be a new Companion, it might be a new gear slot that lets you put on hindering stuff, it might be consumables you can make at different strengths (like with level 1 mats vs level 150 mats) that will gimp you depending on the level, and so on.

colossalvoids

I do afraid they indeed want to insist on the same instance, won't be surprising much if the reasoning for giving us an option was about more experienced players giving a hand to a new folks as apparently helping out nowadays isn't common enough and they need people incentivized to do so. Will see.

After the Oblivion leak I'm inclined to think it's more about of how to occupy more mmo oriented people for some time and make game a better shaped for the tes fans who would be back after. If enough people would indeed switch for a mainline for a time they have a space to improve the game meanwhile instead of just bloating it.

xclassgaming

I like the current diffuculty fine; i play games to relax not too feel even more stressed; it SHOULD be a toggle. LOTRO has done the system very well; zos should just take notes off their overland diffuculty. people like me are happy we aint playing elder scrolls dark souls edition and the people who want that; get it.

Make it a toggle zos PLEASE do not force this on people who do not want it!

Raz415

Thank God for difficulty increases. The supereasy overland content was the number 1 reason I completely stopped playing. I could have lived with all my other petpeevs about the game and simply done questing solo, but it was just so boring I stopped. I cringe every time a skill line quest would send me "exploring".

One thing I'd really like to see change is death being completely and utterly meaningless. Rather than go around a cliff and find a way to its bottom, I just jump down and die. Why not? It costs me nothing other than some durability and 1 soul gem. With over 1 million gold, the cost amounts to nothing. I think it's problematic and should be fixed if we ever are to take overland content seriously.

I love the companions. I'm 100% for overland content where you are expected to either party up with a player or use a companion (and that at least 1 companion is available to new players).

PS: I really wish companions could survive AoEs in boss fight and at least try to follow mechanics, and help out with pressure plate puzzles and such. You could do such fun things in overland content if companions were reliable! I don't know of any games that really tried. Some MMOs give pets/companions a 99% reduction in AoE damage to compensate, but it's really not the same thing.

barney2525

casparian wrote: »

Thanks for the dedicated thread, Kevin!

Let me go ahead and get a few things out of the way that tend to derail conversations about this topic.

No, no one wants to force you to play a more challenging overland if you don't want to.

INcorrect.

So long as players start their posts by telling everyone else What the game is supposed to be, without so much as an " In My Opinion ", people ARE trying to shame players that have differing opinions into following their orders. We have players that Decree - since this is an online game, the Game Requires you to play it with other people. Since it is an MMO it is NOT to be played solo. And they Demand that you acquiesce to Their personal preferences.

IMHO the Company does Not create a game with such designations. Their primary, Number One goal is this : To Make as Much Money As Possible. Just like ANY business. And you make the Most Money by offering a game that can be enjoyed by ALL personal preferences and play styles.

Players get tired of being told ( Not by the Company, but by Other Players ) HOW they must play the game. PvP is full of these complaints about various tactics and playstyles that some players don't think is " Fair ".

So IMHO, if you are going to make Overland require Groups to travel it in order to survive, Then They need to REMOVE all Fast Travel in the Game. No More Wayshrines. No More Recall. And remove Everything that can reduce the character's or the mount's speed. No more just sprinting through the middle of the mobs at warp speed.

And do Not change the maps at all. This would really make the Current event so much fun, right?

I wonder how much more money the Company would gain from these suggestions?

spartaxoxo

barney2525 wrote: »

So long as players start their posts by telling everyone else What the game is supposed to be, without so much as an " In My Opinion ", people ARE trying to shame players that have differing opinions into following their orders.

I disagree. People are just sharing their opinions. Some people are simply more direct in their manner of speech. This can be for a variety of reasons, including direct speech being a normal part of their culture. An opinion about how a video game feels to play is inherently subjective. So, they many find such language to be repetitive. This doesn't mean they think everyone has to agree with them or want to force anything on anyone.

The majority of posters in this thread have argued in favor of optional difficulty increases rather than forced. The very few people who wanted it forced have generally explicitly stated as much and found themselves disagreed with by most in this thread.

SilverBride

I agree with @barney2525. Opinions should be stated as opinions and not facts.

Saying "Overland is too easy" presents it as a fact, but it isn't. It's a personal preference.

However saying "I find Overland too easy for how I like to play" clearly states that this is the player's personal view and is much less likely to meet pushback.

Arunei

Raz415 wrote: »

Thank God for difficulty increases. The supereasy overland content was the number 1 reason I completely stopped playing. I could have lived with all my other petpeevs about the game and simply done questing solo, but it was just so boring I stopped. I cringe every time a skill line quest would send me "exploring".

One thing I'd really like to see change is death being completely and utterly meaningless. Rather than go around a cliff and find a way to its bottom, I just jump down and die. Why not? It costs me nothing other than some durability and 1 soul gem. With over 1 million gold, the cost amounts to nothing. I think it's problematic and should be fixed if we ever are to take overland content seriously.

I love the companions. I'm 100% for overland content where you are expected to either party up with a player or use a companion (and that at least 1 companion is available to new players).

PS: I really wish companions could survive AoEs in boss fight and at least try to follow mechanics, and help out with pressure plate puzzles and such. You could do such fun things in overland content if companions were reliable! I don't know of any games that really tried. Some MMOs give pets/companions a 99% reduction in AoE damage to compensate, but it's really not the same thing.

The last thing I want is to have to group up with people for Overland, which is NOT meany to be that hard. There's plenty of content that requires that; why should the whole game? MMO =/= needing to engage in the game with other people every single time you play. And not everyone wants to or should be expected to use Companions, either. It can be a pain in the butt and a headache many people don't want to deal with.

And I also really really really DO NOT WANT death to 'mean something' and punish people. Just because other games make you lose items or other progress does not mean every game needs to be that way. It's not fun, it's irritating and frustrating, especially in a game where lag and disconnects have been really bad for a lot of us lately. If I were to lose items or experience or whatever because I died to no fault of my own, I'd very quickly stop playing, and most other people would as well.

tomofhyrule

I think one of the biggest issues with "increase difficulty of overland" is that it's actually a few different things in there. And that means that everyone's arguing for a different version of it, and making different strawmen of everything to discount the opposition.

First, it should be broken down as to what "overland difficulty" entails. I see a few different things people highlight:

• Overland trash mobs
• Delve and World bosses
• Story quest bosses

A lot of people say "I want harder difficulty because I don't want the story final boss to fall over when I breathe on them" and the rebuttal ends up being "I don't want to spend 10 minutes fighting a wolf to pick flowers." Those are talking about two different things, and we should treat them as two different things. On the flipside, we should recognize that there is no comparison between the bosses in the later DLCs and the basegame bosses - even the delves are starting to get mechanics. Trying to argue that DLC bosses and basegame bosses are the same level is blatantly false.

I personally favor the idea of a self-nerf (my favorite is slottable CPs that will decrease damage done/increase taken, as that will also remove CP from the equation as well), but I recognize that that just leads to damage sponge bosses. I normally fight as a damage sponge anyway since my main is a well-geared PvE tank with no damage bonuses, so I'm mostly out-DPSed by my Companion and I really don't feel like having to Armory myself to play overland. I do know that that is not 'fun' for people who want more intense bosses though, so I know that's not the best solution. I also know that making a 'vet' overland instance would mean that the 'normal' overland would be basically empty, which means new players (who already struggle to kill bosses) would then also not even have people around to come help.

My biggest issue with increasing difficulty of story bosses though is the fact that they're one-and-done. ESO's stories are not exactly replayable - sure, people love to replay RPGs like Baldur's Gate since you can play a different class or make different choices, but ESO's stories are fairly linear and have only gotten more and more linear as time goes on. Very few people will feel the need to run the entire "Hi nameless adventurer, do this fetch quest while I explain everything to you like you're a blithering idiot" multiple times on multiple characters, so a really intense final fight is pretty well wasted after you see it once. I really enjoyed the Ithelia fight at the end of Gold Road, but I have zero intention of getting another character through Necrom AND Gold Road AND the epilogue just to spend 5 minutes with this fight again. The best I can hope for is that it ends up in the Archive at some point. Personally, I'd rather the Encounters team spend the time making Dungeon or Trial bosses with interesting mechanics since those can be done over and over, instead of making a really fun one-time boss and then no Dungeons.

I do agree that mobs are a bit of a nothing burger, and even raising their health slightly wouldn't be much of a setback. I think there are things that they could do based on zones though. Now that new players are being fed back into the Coldharbour tutorial, I think they could bump mob difficulty and especially Delve/World boss difficulty based on zone. Here's what I would do if I were in charge:

• Starter islands (Bleakrock, Bal Foyen, Stros, Betnikh, Khenarthi): Keep as is
• Base Game Zones: maybe just increase enemy HP by 5% or so per zone level (e.g. Glenumbra is a 1st level zone, so +5%; the Rift is a 5th level zone so +25%)
• Coldharbour and most Stage 1 DLC Story zones and some Stage 2s (Hew's Bane, Gold Coast, Vvardenfell, Clockwork, Summerset, NElsweyr, SElsweyr, WSkyrim, Blackwood, High Isle, TelPen, Gold Road): +25% mob health and damage, higher mob density, give them some mechanics like flameshapers - something that can be ignored but will be punishing if you do
• Wild and Dangerous zones (Murkmire, Wrothgar, Reach, Deadlands, Galen, Apocrypha): See above but more intense. Definitely more mobs with mechanics as well.
• Group zones (Craglorn): Maybe not exactly what it was, but close to it. Mobs that hit hard and need you to pay attention to mechanics. Also include a popup like we have on the Crow and Hollowjack bosses - "You are about to enter a difficult zone where grouping is encouraged. [ ] Do not show this message again."

Also, I'd give instances story bosses the same treatment as Molag Bal in the basegame - if you die, it ramps down the health for your next try so you can eventually get it. We do already have people who are unable to beat the latest DLC story bosses as is, and they should not be gatekept from it.

I'd be interested if they did another "Craglorn-eqsue" zone, especially if it was one where there really wasn't a zone story, but it had a series of repeatable quests. One I think would really fit well here would be Solstheim. At this point in history, there is literally nothing on Solstheim outside of Skaal Village (Hrothmund the Red and Thirsk mead hall don't get established for another 300-600 years, depending on which drunks you want to believe). However, that means it'd be a great place that's essentially an untapped wilderness with very few NPCs, really tough mobs, imposing WBs, elaborate group delves (there are even some that could connect to other places, like Benkongerike which could connect to Apocrypha because it holds a Black Book in Skyrim, or Mortrag Glacier which could lead to a Hunting Grounds area), and then only a handful of repeatable dailies (like the Skaal could give dailies for the Trials of Aevar Stone Singer). It doesn't need (and shouldn't have!) a zone story at all; it's be better if it was really just an adventure frontier - maybe with a small instance size so it's mostly a challenge zone with few other players around unless you're grouped and have it drop a rare mat (like how Craglorn drops Nirncrux).

spartaxoxo

SilverBride wrote: »

I agree with barney2525. Opinions should be stated as opinions and not facts.

Saying "Overland is too easy" presents it as a fact, but it isn't. It's a personal preference.

However saying "I find Overland too easy for how I like to play" clearly states that this is the player's personal view and is much less likely to meet pushback.

Easy is subjective so it's not presenting it as a fact. Overland is too easy is simply direct. The latter is nicer in some cultures but is not how a person would speak in others. Direct speech =/= fact.

disky

Arunei wrote: »

Raz415 wrote: »

Thank God for difficulty increases. The supereasy overland content was the number 1 reason I completely stopped playing. I could have lived with all my other petpeevs about the game and simply done questing solo, but it was just so boring I stopped. I cringe every time a skill line quest would send me "exploring".

One thing I'd really like to see change is death being completely and utterly meaningless. Rather than go around a cliff and find a way to its bottom, I just jump down and die. Why not? It costs me nothing other than some durability and 1 soul gem. With over 1 million gold, the cost amounts to nothing. I think it's problematic and should be fixed if we ever are to take overland content seriously.

I love the companions. I'm 100% for overland content where you are expected to either party up with a player or use a companion (and that at least 1 companion is available to new players).

PS: I really wish companions could survive AoEs in boss fight and at least try to follow mechanics, and help out with pressure plate puzzles and such. You could do such fun things in overland content if companions were reliable! I don't know of any games that really tried. Some MMOs give pets/companions a 99% reduction in AoE damage to compensate, but it's really not the same thing.

The last thing I want is to have to group up with people for Overland, which is NOT meany to be that hard. There's plenty of content that requires that; why should the whole game? MMO =/= needing to engage in the game with other people every single time you play. And not everyone wants to or should be expected to use Companions, either. It can be a pain in the butt and a headache many people don't want to deal with.

And I also really really really DO NOT WANT death to 'mean something' and punish people. Just because other games make you lose items or other progress does not mean every game needs to be that way. It's not fun, it's irritating and frustrating, especially in a game where lag and disconnects have been really bad for a lot of us lately. If I were to lose items or experience or whatever because I died to no fault of my own, I'd very quickly stop playing, and most other people would as well.

I understand this perspective, but while I don't think some of the more hardcore ideas presented will ever happen, I want to have them as an option, because what it means for me is that gameplay is more consequential and my choices make more of a difference. I just want to have to think about what I'm doing in overland, as someone who prefers overland over any other kind of content ESO provides. I'm not terribly interested in grouping, but I do think that there should be a level at which grouping, or even just ad hoc team-ups, makes a difference. It doesn't currently, for the most part and that's a little sad in my opinion.

As far as death is concerned, one challenge element I'd love to see is the dramatic decrease in the drop rate for soul gems. I'd like for them to (optionally) be much harder to acquire, or even impossible without resorting to alternative sources. And of course, that could be mitigated by simply buying them, but at least you're forced to think about that rather than just selling stacks of them all the time.

For me, the goal is to increase the number of scenarios in which I have to think about something, and for things to matter more. When my choices matter, it grounds me in the world and I am immersed. If nothing I do matters, I just feel like I'm floating through the game.

Beilin_Balreis_Colcan

I agree with barney2525: forum members should state their opinions but not claim that these describe how the game should be played.

Arunei

disky wrote: »

Arunei wrote: »

Raz415 wrote: »

Thank God for difficulty increases. The supereasy overland content was the number 1 reason I completely stopped playing. I could have lived with all my other petpeevs about the game and simply done questing solo, but it was just so boring I stopped. I cringe every time a skill line quest would send me "exploring".

One thing I'd really like to see change is death being completely and utterly meaningless. Rather than go around a cliff and find a way to its bottom, I just jump down and die. Why not? It costs me nothing other than some durability and 1 soul gem. With over 1 million gold, the cost amounts to nothing. I think it's problematic and should be fixed if we ever are to take overland content seriously.

I love the companions. I'm 100% for overland content where you are expected to either party up with a player or use a companion (and that at least 1 companion is available to new players).

PS: I really wish companions could survive AoEs in boss fight and at least try to follow mechanics, and help out with pressure plate puzzles and such. You could do such fun things in overland content if companions were reliable! I don't know of any games that really tried. Some MMOs give pets/companions a 99% reduction in AoE damage to compensate, but it's really not the same thing.

The last thing I want is to have to group up with people for Overland, which is NOT meany to be that hard. There's plenty of content that requires that; why should the whole game? MMO =/= needing to engage in the game with other people every single time you play. And not everyone wants to or should be expected to use Companions, either. It can be a pain in the butt and a headache many people don't want to deal with.

And I also really really really DO NOT WANT death to 'mean something' and punish people. Just because other games make you lose items or other progress does not mean every game needs to be that way. It's not fun, it's irritating and frustrating, especially in a game where lag and disconnects have been really bad for a lot of us lately. If I were to lose items or experience or whatever because I died to no fault of my own, I'd very quickly stop playing, and most other people would as well.

I understand this perspective, but while I don't think some of the more hardcore ideas presented will ever happen, I want to have them as an option, because what it means for me is that gameplay is more consequential and my choices make more of a difference. I just want to have to think about what I'm doing in overland, as someone who prefers overland over any other kind of content ESO provides. I'm not terribly interested in grouping, but I do think that there should be a level at which grouping, or even just ad hoc team-ups, makes a difference. It doesn't currently, for the most part and that's a little sad in my opinion.

As far as death is concerned, one challenge element I'd love to see is the dramatic decrease in the drop rate for soul gems. I'd like for them to (optionally) be much harder to acquire, or even impossible without resorting to alternative sources. And of course, that could be mitigated by simply buying them, but at least you're forced to think about that rather than just selling stacks of them all the time.

For me, the goal is to increase the number of scenarios in which I have to think about something, and for things to matter more. When my choices matter, it grounds me in the world and I am immersed. If nothing I do matters, I just feel like I'm floating through the game.

Grouping may not make a difference for a lot of us because we've been playing long enough to be good at the game, to have a bunch of CP and gear and experience and so on. But for a lot of people, I'm sure grouping DOES help. And there are a number of Incursions and such that may not require grouping, but do require you to do the content with others. There are of course people who can solo stuff like Dragons and Vents but that's not a majority of us. Maybe a new pre-1T Craglorn-esque Zone could be introduced that encourages grouping? A lot of people are a lot stronger now than they were back during Craglorn's release. Of course it would not be fun or anything for people who don't like that sort of thing or can't do it, but it would also be contained to one Zone and not implemented in all of them.

I'm curious as to how death being more punishing than it is now would work for you. Genuinely, not being snarky or anything. How would death be made meaningful? And how would having less access to Soul Gems really help? If you don't have any, currently you'd just be forced to go to the nearest Wayshrine, which depending on where you are COULD be annoying since some places are stupid far from the closest Wayshrine.

I suppose death could impose some sort of debuff on you, like halving stat regen or something, but then if you died because content is too hard...well, making it harder wouldn't be fun for most people lol. But that's where handy opt-in things come in. I'm starting to wonder if maybe the best thing would be a set of options you could toggle to make stuff harder, like adding penalties for death, activating permanent debuffs, stuff like that.

Also this is why this thread is still open, to people who think it should be closed or whatever. There are still ideas and feedback being presented. Maybe ZOS wouldn't have considered adding penalties for death otherwise, since I don't remember seeing it be mentioned before (which...means nothing, because I've gone whole months without checking in here).

Also don't you dare take selling stupid numbers of stacks of Soul Gems from me that's an easy 6k per stack lol

SilverBride

spartaxoxo wrote: »

SilverBride wrote: »

I agree with barney2525. Opinions should be stated as opinions and not facts.

Saying "Overland is too easy" presents it as a fact, but it isn't. It's a personal preference.

However saying "I find Overland too easy for how I like to play" clearly states that this is the player's personal view and is much less likely to meet pushback.

Easy is subjective so it's not presenting it as a fact. Overland is too easy is simply direct. The latter is nicer in some cultures but is not how a person would speak in others. Direct speech =/= fact.

I disagree. Even just saying "I find Overland too easy" is much more clear that an opinion is being given. Because Overland is not too easy for many players and hearing it stated as fact just stirs up defensive feelings.